Infinite regress is logically impossible

[bahman]

OK, I see what you mean. How about saying that the infinite past cannot be reached by reversing time?

Generally I think humility about deducing our way to certainty about ontology is wiser. There will be people who will deduce that there can't suddenly be a universe of matter with nothing before it, whether time begins then or not. There will be people who think they can deduce the universe cannot have been around forever with their favorite deduction. I think both groups are showing hubris when they rule out such ontological models. We've already been surprised, as a species, by huge things that seemed not possible turning out to be the case.

I'm not saying no one should try these deductions and consider them. But with a grain of salt the size of a house.

Infinity, reachable or unreachable? Take your pick.

[attofishpi]

OK, I see what you mean. How about saying that the infinite past cannot be reached by reversing time?

Generally I think humility about deducing our way to certainty about ontology is wiser. There will be people who will deduce that there can't suddenly be a universe of matter with nothing before it, whether time begins then or not. There will be people who think they can deduce the universe cannot have been around forever with their favorite deduction. I think both groups are showing hubris when they rule out such ontological models. We've already been surprised, as a species, by huge things that seemed not possible turning out to be the case.

I'm not saying no one should try these deductions and consider them. But with a grain of salt the size of a house.

Infinity, reachable or unreachable? Take your pick.

Infinity in any metaphysical consideration is always a paradox that should be avoided.

[bahman]

Generally I think humility about deducing our way to certainty about ontology is wiser. There will be people who will deduce that there can't suddenly be a universe of matter with nothing before it, whether time begins then or not. There will be people who think they can deduce the universe cannot have been around forever with their favorite deduction. I think both groups are showing hubris when they rule out such ontological models. We've already been surprised, as a species, by huge things that seemed not possible turning out to be the case.

I'm not saying no one should try these deductions and consider them. But with a grain of salt the size of a house.

Infinity, reachable or unreachable? Take your pick.

Infinity in any metaphysical consideration is always a paradox that should be avoided.

What paradox?

[attofishpi]

Infinity, reachable or unreachable? Take your pick.

Infinity in any metaphysical consideration is always a paradox that should be avoided.

What paradox?

Can you reach infinity?

[bahman]

Infinity in any metaphysical consideration is always a paradox that should be avoided.

What paradox?

Can you reach infinity?

No.

[Immanuel Can]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state.

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition, but it's too general to be informative of anything, and that's why they have to go into a whole series of more refined definitions...as in, what "regress" means in medicine, or in philosophy, or in mathematics...

In the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, it refers to the sequence of cause and effect. Suggesting that something is a "cause" for something else means that we are "regressing" into the reason for the thing coming about. To ask why that "cause" was "caused," or to ask of what it was an "effect," in the cause-effect chain, is to "regress" one step further...and so on.

The Kalaam points out that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. And the reason for that is if the causes are infinitely recessive behind any given effect, then there is no point at which the chain of cause and effect can "get going."

So yes, to suggest an infinite regress of causes and effects is absurd and illogical. We can know for certain that no such thing has happened, since it would be impossible. And the Kalaam points out that the universe itself is an effect of some set of prior causes, which are themselves the effects of prior causes, which are themselves the effect of prior cause, which are also the effect of prior causes...and so on. But the chain, we know for certain, cannot be infinite: because if we imagined that, then we would also have to conclude the universe could not exist, and neither could we. In fact, nothing could exist.

But something does exist. Here we are. So we know that there was an original starting point for the cause-effect chain that resulted in the universe's existence, and in our own.

And there, the Kalaam stops. It doesn't tell us what that original Cause of all things had to be, in specific. But it does make it necessary for us to conclude that there had to be an original Cause.

[attofishpi]

What paradox?

Can you reach infinity?

No.

Well then, therein within a metaphysical comprehension of anything, 'infinity' is a paradox.

[Harbal]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state.

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

[attofishpi]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state.

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

...we're never 'quite right', sometimes maybe almost, but just not quite.

IC of course, the DICTATOR of what is RIGHT.

[Impenitent]

people cross infinite distances all the time

-Imp

[Harbal]

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

...we're never 'quite right', sometimes maybe almost, but just not quite.

IC of course, the DICTATOR of what is RIGHT.

Well all those definitions aren't going to fall in step with the Bible on their own, are they?

[attofishpi]

people cross infinite distances all the time

-Imp

No, they don't. If you think they do, I shall ashore you, I will win this debate.

[Immanuel Can]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state.

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

I'm not "correcting" the dictionaries: I'm pointing out that their definitions are usually more than one. You can see it for yourself. Here is Oxford...you've heard of Oxford, right?

re·gress
verb
verb: regress; 3rd person present: regresses; past tense: regressed; past participle: regressed; gerund or present participle: regressing
/rəˈɡres/

1.
return to a former or less developed state.
"art has been regressing toward adolescence for more than a generation now"
h
Similar:
revert

retrogress
relapse
lapse
backslide
go backwards
slip back
drift back
subside
sink back
deteriorate
decline
worsen
degenerate
get worse
fall
fall off
fall away
drop
ebb
wane
slump
go downhill
go to pot
go to the dogs
recidivate
retrograde
h
Opposite:
progress

improve
return mentally to a former stage of life or a supposed previous life, especially through hypnosis or mental illness.
"she claims to be able to regress to the Roman era"
2.
Statistics
calculate the coefficient or coefficients of regression of (a variable) against or on another variable.
"a model in which C and Y are regressed on the same variables"
3.
Astronomy
move in a retrograde direction.
"a planet regularly regresses"

noun
noun: regress; plural noun: regresses
/ˈrēˌɡres/

1.
the action of returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regress is a return to Puritan values"
2.
Philosophy
a series of statements in which a logical procedure is continually reapplied to its own result without approaching a useful conclusion (e.g. defining something in terms of itself).

Origin

[attofishpi]

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

I'm not "correcting" the dictionaries: I'm pointing out that their definitions are usually more than one. You can see it for yourself. Here is Oxford...you've heard of Oxford, right?

re·gress
verb
verb: regress; 3rd person present: regresses; past tense: regressed; past participle: regressed; gerund or present participle: regressing
/rəˈɡres/

1.
return to a former or less developed state.
"art has been regressing toward adolescence for more than a generation now"
h
Similar:
revert

retrogress
relapse
lapse
backslide
go backwards
slip back
drift back
subside
sink back
deteriorate
decline
worsen
degenerate
get worse
fall
fall off
fall away
drop
ebb
wane
slump
go downhill
go to pot
go to the dogs
recidivate
retrograde
h
Opposite:
progress

improve
return mentally to a former stage of life or a supposed previous life, especially through hypnosis or mental illness.
"she claims to be able to regress to the Roman era"
2.
Statistics
calculate the coefficient or coefficients of regression of (a variable) against or on another variable.
"a model in which C and Y are regressed on the same variables"
3.
Astronomy
move in a retrograde direction.
"a planet regularly regresses"

noun
noun: regress; plural noun: regresses
/ˈrēˌɡres/

1.
the action of returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regress is a return to Puritan values"
2.
Philosophy
a series of statements in which a logical procedure is continually reapplied to its own result without approaching a useful conclusion (e.g. defining something in terms of itself).

Origin

Clearly IC is incapable of inferring within the context of the discussion what is meant by the term "REGRESS" (Age has a similar brain malfunction)

[Harbal]

That's not quite right. I know that a lot of dictionaries start with that definition,

How's your latest project of correcting all the dictionaries going, btw; are you making much progress?

I'm not "correcting" the dictionaries:

Shall we say modifying, then, and adding the odd bit here and there that the compilers overlooked?

Here is Oxford...you've heard of Oxford, right?

re·gress
verb
verb: regress; 3rd person present: regresses; past tense: regressed; past participle: regressed; gerund or present participle: regressing
/rəˈɡres/

1.
return to a former or less developed state.
"art has been regressing toward adolescence for more than a generation now"
h
Similar:
revert

retrogress
relapse
lapse
backslide
go backwards
slip back
drift back
subside
sink back
deteriorate
decline
worsen
degenerate
get worse
fall
fall off
fall away
drop
ebb
wane
slump
go downhill
go to pot
go to the dogs
recidivate
retrograde
h
Opposite:
progress

improve
return mentally to a former stage of life or a supposed previous life, especially through hypnosis or mental illness.
"she claims to be able to regress to the Roman era"
2.
Statistics
calculate the coefficient or coefficients of regression of (a variable) against or on another variable.
"a model in which C and Y are regressed on the same variables"
3.
Astronomy
move in a retrograde direction.
"a planet regularly regresses"

noun
noun: regress; plural noun: regresses
/ˈrēˌɡres/

1.
the action of returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regress is a return to Puritan values"
2.
Philosophy
a series of statements in which a logical procedure is continually reapplied to its own result without approaching a useful conclusion (e.g. defining something in terms of itself).

Origin

Yes, that certainly looks like something one would expect to find in a dictionary.